Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 WRIA 16 – State of the Watershed Cushman Dam has been undergoing a relicensing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Key stakeholders in this contentious process have been Tacoma Power (the dam’s owner), the Skokomish Tribe, and the Cushman community. Because of this separate process, this watershed plan will not make recommendations concerning the dam (nearly one-third of the population) draw their water from permit-exempt wells; water use from these wells can amount to a significant amount of water (Golder Associates, 2003). In WRIA 16, the total allocation of water for consumptive uses 6 through water rights is approximately 16,000 AF/yr, or approximately 0.5% of the total streamflow (3 million AF/yr) in the basin (Golder Associates, 2003). Golder Associates excluded water rights for hydropower uses (including Cushman Dam) and fish propagation in this total because these uses generally return water to the stream and so are termed non-consumptive. 7 Non-consumptive uses are when there is no diversion or diminishment from the source water body, or when diverted water is returned directly to the point of diversion. However, the estimated 333,000 AF/yr of water used for hydropower at Cushman Dam are discharged directly to Hood Canal (Golder Associates, 2003); since this water is not returned to the Skokomish River (hence diminishing the source) the use does not meet the definition of non-consumptive. Accordingly, a revised figure for the total allocation of water for consumptive use, including the total used for hydropower at Cushman Dam, would be about 350,000 AF/yr. This watershed plan will not directly address Cushman Dam because of the separate relicensing process underway (see sidebar). Of the 16,000 AF/yr of water that is allocated for consumptive uses other than Cushman Dam, groundwater composes slightly more than half (56%) and surface water represents less than half (44%). A similar split also exists between municipal/residential (46%) and irrigation uses (51%), with less than 2% allocated for commercial or industrial purposes (Golder Associates, 2003). The majority of water allocations are located in the Skokomish and Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basins. In addition to the water rights already allocated, several applications for new water rights are pending, especially in the North Fork of the Skokomish River. Pending applications for surface water rights total nearly 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm), and pending applications for groundwater rights total nearly 9,000 gpm. 8 According to the Level 1 Technical Assessment, current information is inadequate to determine whether granting rights to these pending applications would impair stream flows and fish habitat (Golder Associates, 2003). As demand for water elsewhere continues to increase, outside entities may apply for permits to transfer water from WRIA 16 to other areas. For 6 Consumptive water uses are those that consume water from streams or groundwater, diminishing the water source at the point of appropriation. Examples of consumptive use are household use and irrigation. Non-consumptive use means a type of water use where either there is no diversion from a source body, or where there is no discernible diminishment of the source. Use of water for fish hatcheries and hydropower are often considered non-consumptive when they immediately return the diverted water to the stream. 7 The total also excludes water rights for fire suppression. 8 The unit of water quantity for water right applications is gallons per minute because the total annual volume of water in acre-feet is negotiated during the application process. page 14 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Chapter WRIA 16 – State of the Watershed 2 example, a company has applied for a permit to fill large bladders of water in WRIA 16 for transport to California. The Department of Ecology reviews and approves or denies water-right applications. In reviewing these applications, the Planning Unit believes the following criteria are particularly important: • Impacts on water circulation in Hood Canal; • Climate change; • Projected local growth and future demand on the particular water source; • Impacts on instream flows and critical habitat; • Tribal water rights; • Public health impacts and benefits; • Impacts of high stream flows on habitat creation and function; • The environmental and socio economic impact of the proposed infrastructure to collect and transport water; and • Water recharge impacts and benefits. In general, the Planning Unit is opposed to large-scale transfer of water out of the WRIA but does not oppose reasonable withdrawals of water during high stream flows to enhance stream flows in another basin or to allow local bottling of water. If water is to be transferred to another basin, the Planning Unit would like to ensure that the receiving entity has instituted maximum conservation efforts before relying on imported water. However, the Skokomish Tribe is opposed to any transfers of water from WRIA 16 to other areas or watersheds. Tribal Rights Washington State grants the rights for the types of water allocations discussed above. Tribes may have access to separate water rights reserved through treaties with the federal government. The Skokomish Tribe has a claim for separate water rights reserved by it and other tribes in the Treaty of Point No Point, Jan. 26, 1855, 12 Stat. 933. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court in Winters v. U.S. held that when the federal government establishes a reservation, the government impliedly reserved a quantity of water necessary to fulfill the primary purposes of the reservation. This has become known as the “Winters Doctrine.” Tribal treaty water rights have an earlier priority date than the 40 state-granted rights discussed above. For most tribes, however, including for the Skokomish, these rights have not been confirmed or quantified by the courts. The Skokomish Tribe did make its claim when it filed a “Notice of Tribal Water Rights Pursuant to RCW 90.14.068” on June 24, 1998. RCW 90.14.068 established a new filing period for statements of claim for water and groundwater rights that vested before the 1917 Water Code and 1945 Ground Water Code. The Tribe Butler Creek, Dosewallips Sub-basin The Skokomish Tribe has special federal water rights under the Winters Doctrine. These rights have not been quantified, however Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 15
Page 1 and 2: Watershed Management Plan Skokomish
Page 3 and 4: WRIA 16 Summary of Watershed Manage
Page 5 and 6: WRIA 16 Summary of Watershed Manage
Page 7 and 8: WRIA 16 Watershed Management Plan T
Page 9 and 10: Chapter Introduction and Background
Page 15 and 16: Chapter WRIA 16 - State of the Wate
Page 19: Chapter WRIA 16 - State of the Wate
Page 41 and 42: Chapter Recommendations: Water Quan
Page 43 and 44: Chapter Recommendations: Water Qual
Page 45 and 46: 4.2. On-site Septic Systems 4.2.1.
Page 47 and 48: Chapter Recommendations: Water Qual
Page 49 and 50: Chapter Recommendations: Habitat 5
Page 51 and 52: Chapter Other Recommendations 6 ent
Page 53 and 54: Chapter Other Recommendations 6 6.1
Page 55 and 56: Chapter Other Recommendations 6 lan
Page 57 and 58: Chapter Other Recommendations 6 Pla
Page 59 and 60: Chapter Implementing the Plan 7 7.
Page 61 and 62: Chapter Works Cited 8 Hood Canal Co
Page 63 and 64: Chapter Works Cited 8 Puget Sound A
Page 65 and 66: Chapter Works Cited 8 Washington St
Page 67 and 68: Chapter Glossary 9 9. Glossary 303(
Page 69 and 70: Chapter Glossary 9 pH - A measure o
Page 71 and 72:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Appe
Page 73 and 74:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A The
Page 75 and 76:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Duck
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 7. Duckabush Sub-basin
Page 79 and 80:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Esti
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 8. Map of the Hamma Hamma Su
Page 83 and 84:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A perm
Page 85 and 86:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Figu
Page 87 and 88:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Spri
Page 89 and 90:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A beco
Page 91 and 92:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A ISSU
Page 93 and 94:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Sout
Page 95 and 96:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Cree
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 11. Map of the South Shore S
Page 99 and 100:
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Depa
Page 101 and 102:
Key Issues and Options - Water Quan
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Key Issues and Options - Water Qual
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Key Issues and Options - Habitat Ap
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Addressing Cumulative or Cross-Cutt
Page 151 and 152:
Addressing Cumulative or Cross-Cutt
Page 153 and 154:
Options for Funding New Efforts App
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Supporting Documents Appendix G App
show all

Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?